Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
org
Info@vtpi.org
Phone 250-360-1560
By
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Abstract
This report explores the impacts that autonomous (also called self-driving, driverless or robotic) vehicles
are likely to have on travel demands and transportation planning. It discusses autonomous vehicle
benefits and costs, predicts their likely development and implementation based on experience with
previous vehicle technologies, and explores how they will affect planning decisions such as optimal road,
parking and public transit supply. The analysis indicates that some benefits, such as independent
mobility for affluent non-drivers, may begin in the 2020s or 2030s, but most impacts, including reduced
traffic and parking congestion (and therefore road and parking facility supply requirements),
independent mobility for low-income people (and therefore reduced need to subsidize transit),
increased safety, energy conservation and pollution reductions, will only be significant when
autonomous vehicles become common and affordable, probably in the 2040s to 2060s, and some
benefits may require prohibiting human-driven vehicles on certain roadways, which could take longer.
Presented at the 2015 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org), 15-3326.
Summarized in Ready or Waiting, Traffic Technology International, January 2014, pp. 36-42
(www.vtpi.org/AVIP_TTI_Jan2014.pdf).
In response, according to the legend, General Motors issued the following press release.
If General Motors developed technology like Microsoft, motor vehicles would have the following
characteristics:
1. Automobiles would frequently crash for no apparent reason. This would be so common that
motorists would simply accept it, restart their car and continue driving.
2. Occasionally, for no reason, all doors would lock, and motorists could only enter their vehicle by
simultaneously lifting the door handle, turning the key, and holding the radio antenna.
3. Vehicles would occasionally shut down completely and refuse to restart, requiring motorists to
reinstall their engine.
4. Every time GM introduced a new model, car buyers would have to relearn to drive because all
controls would operate in a new manner.
5. Whenever roadway lines are repainted motorists would need to purchase a new car that
accommodates the new operating system.
6. Cars could normally carry only one passenger unless the driver paid extra for a multi-passenger
license.
7. Apple would make a car powered by the sun, more reliable, five times as fast, that required half
the effort to drive, but could operate on just five per cent of roads.
8. Oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single 'general car
default' warning light.
10. Vehicle buyers would be required to also purchase a set of deluxe road maps from Rand-
McNally (a GM subsidiary), regardless of whether or not they want it. A trained mechanic would be
required to delete them from the glove compartment.
11. To shut off the engine drivers would press the 'start' button.
1
www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp
2
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Introduction
Autonomous (also called self-driving, driverless, or robotic) vehicles have long been predicted in
science fiction and discussed in popular media. Recently, major corporations have announced
plans to begin selling such vehicles in a few years, and some jurisdictions have passed
legislation to allow such vehicles to operate legally on public roads (Wikipedia 2013).
Level 1 Function-specific Automation: Automation of specific control functions, such as cruise control, lane
guidance and automated parallel parking. Drivers are fully engaged and responsible for overall vehicle control
(hands on the steering wheel and foot on the pedal at all times).
Level 2 - Combined Function Automation: Automation of multiple and integrated control functions, such as
adaptive cruise control with lane centering. Drivers are responsible for monitoring the roadway and are expected
to be available for control at all times, but under certain conditions can disengaged from vehicle operation (hands
off the steering wheel and foot off pedal simultaneously).
Level 3 - Limited Self-Driving Automation: Drivers can cede all safety-critical functions under certain conditions
and rely on the vehicle to monitor when conditions require transition back to driver control.
Level 4 Self-Driving Under Specified Conditions: Vehicles can perform all driving functions under specified
conditions.
Level 5 - Full Self-Driving Automation: Vehicles can System performs all driving functions on all normal road types,
speed ranges and environmental conditions.
There is much speculation concerning autonomous vehicle impacts (Polzin 2017). Advocates
predict that soon affordable self-driving vehicles will greatly reduce traffic and parking costs,
accidents and pollution emissions, and chauffeur non-drivers, reducing roadway costs,
eliminating the need for conventional public transit services (Keen 2013). Under this scenario,
the savings will be so great that such vehicles will soon be ubiquitous and virtually everybody
will benefit. However, it is possible that their benefits will be smaller and their costs greater
than these optimist predictions assume.
3
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Potential Benefits
Advocates predict that autonomous vehicles will provide significant user convenience, safety,
congestion reductions, fuel savings, and pollution reduction benefits. Such claims many be
overstated. For example, advocates argue that because driver error contributes to more than
90% of traffic accidents, self-driving cars will reduce crashes 90% (KPMG 2012; Fagnant and
Kockelman 2013), including system failures (death by computer), cyberterrorism (Bilger
2013), offsetting behavior (road users tendency to take additional risks when they feel safer;
also called risk compensation) and rebound effects (increased vehicle travel resulting from
faster or cheaper travel) (Ecenbarger 2009; Fung 2015; Kockelman, et al. 2016; Lin 2013;
Ohnsman 2014). If they feel safer, vehicle occupants may reduce seatbelt use, other road users
may become less cautious, vehicles may operate faster and closer together, and human drivers
may be tempted to join autonomous vehicle platoons, which will introduce new risks and
enforcement requirements. Millard-Ball (2016) suggests that pedestrians to become less
cautious and responsible around autonomous vehicles. Detailed analysis by Sivak and Schoettle
(2015a) concluded that autonomous vehicles may be no safer than an average driver and may
increase total crashes when self- and human-driven vehicles mix.
Estimated congestion and parking cost reductions, energy savings and emission reductions are
also uncertain due to interactive effects. For example, the ability to work and rest while
traveling may induce some motorists to choose larger vehicles that can serve as mobile offices
and bedrooms (commuter sex may be a marketing strategy) and drive more annual miles
(Trommer, et al. 2016). Self-driving taxis and self-parking cars may increase empty vehicle
travel. Although the additional vehicle travel provides user benefits (otherwise, users would not
increase their mileage) it can increase external costs, including congestion, roadway and
parking facility costs, accident risk imposed on other road users, and pollution emissions. Some
strategies such as platooning may be limited to grade-separated roadways, so human-driven
vehicles may increase congestion on surface streets. Autonomous vehicles may reduce public
transit travel demand, leading to reduced service, and stimulate more sprawled development
patterns which reduce transport options and increase total vehicle travel.
Potential Costs
The incremental costs of producing autonomous vehicles are uncertain. They require a variety
of special sensors, computers and controls, which currently cost tens of thousands of dollar but
are likely to become cheaper with mass production (KPMG 2012). However, because system
failures could be fatal to both vehicle occupants and other road users, all critical components
will need to meet high manufacturing, installation, repair, testing and maintenance standards,
similar to aircraft components, and so will probably be relatively expensive. Autonomous
vehicle operation may require special navigation and mapping service subscriptions (which
explains Google Corporations interest in this technology). Other, simpler technologies add
hundreds of dollars to vehicle retail prices. For example, GPS and telecommunications systems,
review cameras, and automatic transmissions typically cost $500 to $2,000. Navigation and
4
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
security services such as OnStar and TomTom have $200 to $350 annual fees. Autonomous
vehicles require these plus other equipment and services (see box below).
Manufacturers will need to recover costs of development, ongoing service (special mapping and
software upgrades) and liability, plus earn profits. This suggests that when the technology is
mature, self-driving capability will probably add several thousand dollars to vehicle purchase
prices, plus a few hundred dollars in annual service costs, adding $1,000 to $3,000 to annual
vehicle costs. These incremental costs may be partly offset by fuel and insurance savings. These
average approximately $2,000 for fuel and $1,000 for insurance per vehicle-year. If
autonomous vehicles reduce fuel consumption by 10% and insurance costs by 30%, the annual
savings will total about $500, which will not fully offset predicted incremental annual costs.
Autonomous vehicles can be programed to optimize occupant comfort. Le Vine, Zolfaghari and
Polak (2015) argue that because vehicle passengers tend to be more sensitive to acceleration
than drivers, and occupants use travel time to work or rest (autonomous vehicle illustrations
often show occupants playing cards or sleeping) it is plausible that for comfort sake users will
program their vehicle for lower acceleration/deceleration characteristics than human-powered
vehicles, leading to reductions in total urban roadway capacity.
Shared Vehicles
Some advocates claim that self-driving capability will result in more vehicle sharing, including
self-driving taxis and more private vehicle ridesharing (Fagnant and Kockelman 2013; ITF 2014;
Schonberger and Gutmann 2013). Sivak and Schoettle (2015b) estimate that, by allowing
household vehicles to serve multiple residents, for example, taking a commuter to work and
then transporting another household member for errands, they could reduce vehicle ownership
up to 43%, and increase travel per vehicle up to 75%, but these impacts are difficult to predict.
There are many reasons that motorists may prefer a personal rather than shared vehicle: for
status, because they frequently keep tools or carry dirty loads in their vehicles, because they
drive high annual miles, or because they need assistance provided by human drivers.
5
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Personal automobiles typically cost about $4,000 annually in fixed expenses plus 20 per mile in
operating costs. It is generally cheaper to use conventional taxis ($2.00-3.00 per mile) rather
than own a personal vehicle driven less than about 2,500 annual miles, or rely on carsharing
services ($0.60-1.00 per mile) rather than own a vehicle driven less than about 6,000 annual
miles. This suggests that autonomous vehicles will be a cost effective alternative to owning a
vehicle driving less than 2,500 to 6,000 annual miles, depending on cleaning and repair costs.
Table 1 summarizes trip types most suitable for self-driving taxis, a minority of total vehicle
travel. Because of these additional costs, and reduced passenger comfort and privacy, it seems
unlikely that most motorists will shift from owning vehicles to relying on self-driving taxis.
6
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Various studies have estimated that shared autonomous vehicles will cost $0.20-0.40 per
passenger-mile (Bsch, et al. 2017), but these are mostly lower-bound estimates that exclude
some cost categories (such as vehicle cleaning and overhead costs), use optimistic cost and
occupancy assumptions, and ignore empty vehicle travel required for taxi services. A more
realistic estimate is that shared autonomous vehicle costs are likely to range between
carsharing ($0.60- $1.00 per vehicle-mile, including ownership, operation and administrative
costs) and human-operated taxis ($2.00-3.00 per vehicle-mile including ownership, operation,
administration and labor costs).
These scenarios illustrate how autonomous vehicles could impact various users travel patterns:
Jake is an affluent man with degenerating vision. In 2026 his doctor convinced him to give up driving. He
purchases an autonomous vehicle instead of shifting to walking, transit and taxies.
Impacts: An autonomous vehicle allows Jake to continue using a car, which increases his independent
mobility, total vehicle ownership and travel, residential parking demand, and external costs (congestion,
roadway costs, parking subsidies, and pollution emissions), compared with what would otherwise occur.
7
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Bonnie lives and works in a suburb. She can bike to most destinations but occasionally needs to travel by
car. In a city she could rely on taxis and carsharing, but such services are slow and expensive in suburbs.
However, starting in 2030 a local company started offering fast and affordable automated taxi services.
Impacts: Autonomous vehicles allow Bonnie to rely on shared vehicles rather than purchase a car, which
reduces her total vehicle travel, residential parking demand, and external costs.
Malisa and Johnny have two children. Malisa works at a downtown office. After their second child was
born in 2035, they shopped for a larger home. With conventional cars they would only consider houses
within a 30-minute drive of the city, but more affordable new autonomous vehicles let them consider
more distant homes, with commutes up to 60-minutes, during which Malisa could rest and work.
Impacts: Affordable new autonomous vehicles allows Malisa and Johnny to choose an exurban home
which increased their total vehicle travel and associated costs, plus other costs caused by sprawl.
Garry is hard-working and responsible when sober, but a dangerous driver when drunk. By 2040 he had
accumulated several impaired citations and caused a few accidents. With conventional cars Garry would
continue driving impaired until he lost his drivers license or caused a severe crash, but affordable used
self-driving vehicles allow lower-income motorists like Garry to avoid such problems.
Impacts: Affordable used autonomous vehicles allow Garry to avoid impaired driving, accidents and
revoked driving privileges, which reduces crash risks but increases his vehicle ownership and travel, and
external costs compared with what would otherwise occur.
Table 3 summarizes the resulting impacts of these various scenarios. This suggests that in many
cases autonomous vehicles will increase total vehicle mileage.
This analysis suggests that effects which increase motor vehicle travel are more numerous and
significant than those that reduce vehicle travel, so self-driving vehicles are likely to increase
total vehicle travel, although these impacts are difficult to predict and will depend on specific
autonomous vehicle implementation, such as their actual performance and user costs, and
other factors that affect vehicle travel such as fuel and road prices. Increases in total vehicle
travel may be somewhat offset by reductions in per-mile costs of this incremental travel; for
example, self-driving cars may impose less traffic congestion, parking costs, accident risk and air
pollution costs than human-operated vehicles per mile travelled, so the increased vehicle travel
will impose little or no extra external costs, but the net effects are uncertain.
8
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Reduced driver costs. Reduce costs of paid drivers for Additional risks. May introduce new risks, such as system
taxis and commercial transport. failures, be less safe under certain conditions, and encourage
road users to take additional risks (offsetting behavior).
Mobility for non-drivers. Provide independent mobility for
non-drivers, and therefore reduce the need for motorists Security and Privacy concerns. May be used for criminal and
to chauffeur non-drivers, and to subsidize public transit. terrorist activities (such as bomb delivery), vulnerable to
information abuse (hacking), and features such as GPS
Increased safety. May reduce many common accident tracking and data sharing may raise privacy concerns.
risks and therefore crash costs and insurance premiums.
May reduce high-risk driving, such as when impaired. Induced vehicle travel and increased external costs. By
increasing travel convenience and affordability, autonomous
Increased road capacity, reduced costs. May allow vehicles may induce additional vehicle travel, increasing
platooning (vehicle groups traveling close together), external costs of parking, crashes and pollution.
narrower lanes, and reduced intersection stops, reducing
congestion and roadway costs. Social equity concerns. May have unfair impacts, for example,
by reducing other modes convenience and safety.
More efficient parking, reduced costs. Can drop off
passengers and find a parking space, increasing motorist Reduced employment and business activity. Jobs for drivers
convenience and reducing total parking costs. should decline, and there may be less demand for vehicle
repairs due to reduced crash rates.
Increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution. May
increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution emissions. Misplaced planning emphasis. Focusing on autonomous
vehicle solutions may discourage communities from
Supports shared vehicles. Could facilitate carsharing implementing more cost-effective transport solutions such as
(vehicle rental services that substitute for personal better walking and transit improvements, pricing reforms and
vehicle ownership), which can provide various savings. other demand management strategies.
Autonomous vehicles can provide various benefits and impose various costs.
Some impacts, such as reduced driver stress and increased urban roadway capacity, can occur
under level 2 or 3 implementation, which provides limited self-driving capability, but many
benefits, such as significant crash reductions, road and parking cost savings and affordable
mobility for non-drivers, require that level 4 vehicles become common and inexpensive.
9
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Currently (2016), many new vehicles have some level 1 automation features such as cruise
control, obstruction warning, and parallel parking. Some manufactures, such as Tesla, now offer
level 2 features such as automated lane guidance, accident avoidance, and driver fatigue
detection. Coordinated platooning is now technically feasible but not operational because many
benefits require dedicated lanes. Google level 3 test vehicles have reportedly driven hundreds of
thousands of miles under restricted conditions: specially mapped routes, fair weather, and
human drivers able to intervene when needed (Muller 2013). Some manufacturers aspire to sell
level 4 automation vehicles within a few years but details are uncertain; early versions will
probably be limited to controlled environments such as freeways (Row 2013).
Despite this progress, significant technical improvement is needed to achieve unrestricted level
4 operation (Simonite 2016). Since a failure could be deadly to vehicle occupants and other
road users, automated driving has high performance requirements. Sensors, computers and
software must be robust, redundant and resistant to abuse. Several more years of development
and testing will be required before regulators and potential users gain confidence that level 4
vehicles can operate as expected under all conditions (Bilger 2013; Schoettle and Sivak 2015).
10
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Implementation Projections
Autonomous vehicle implementation can be predicted based on the pattern of previous vehicle
technologies, and vehicle fleet turnover rates.
Automatic Transmissions (Healey 2012). First developed in the 1930s. It took until the 1980s to
become reliable and affordable. Now standard on most U.S. medium and high-priced vehicles,
although some models have manual mode. When optional they typically cost $1,000 to $2,000.
Current new vehicle market shares are about 90% in North America and 50% in Europe and Asia.
Air Bags (Dirksen 1997). First introduced in 1973. Initially an expensive and sometimes
dangerous option (they could cause injuries and deaths), they became cheaper and safer, were
standard on some models starting in 1988, and mandated by U.S. federal regulation in 1998.
Hybrid Vehicles (Berman 2011). Became commercially available in 1997, but prices were high
and performance poor. Their performance and usability has improved, but typically add about
$5,000 to vehicle prices. In 2012 they represented about 3.3% of total vehicle sales.
Subscription Vehicle Services. Navigation, remote lock/unlock, diagnostics and emergency
services. OnStar became available in 1997, TomTom in 2002. They typically cost $200-400
annually. About 2% of U.S. motorists subscribe to the largest service, OnStar.
Vehicle Navigation Systems (Lendion 2012). Vehicle navigation systems became available as
expensive accessories in the mid-1980s. In the mid-1990s factory-installed systems became
available on some models, for about $2,000. Performance and usability have since improved,
and prices have declined to about $500 for factory-installed systems, and under $200 for
portable systems. They are standard in many higher-priced models.
Table 6 summarizes the deployment cycles, from first commercial availability to market
saturation, for these technologies. Most new technologies require decades of technical
development and market growth to saturate their potential markets, and in many cases never
become universal. Airbags had the shortest cycle and the most complete market share, due to
federal mandates. Automatic transmissions required more than five decades for prices to
decline and quality to improve, and are still not universal. Hybrid vehicles are still developing
after 15 years on the market, have substantial price premiums and modest market share. This
suggests that new vehicle technologies generally require two to five decades from commercial
availability to market saturation, and without government mandates will not be universal.
11
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Modern vehicles are durable, resulting in slow fleet turnover. Median operating lives increased
from 11.5 years for the 1970 model year, to 12.5 years for the 1980 model year, and 16.9 years
for the 1990 model year (ORNL 2012, Table 3.12), suggesting that current vehicles may have 20
year or longer average lifespans. As a result, new vehicle technologies normally require three to
five decades to be implemented in 90% of operating vehicles. Deployment may be faster in
developing countries where fleets are expanding, and in areas with strict vehicle inspection
requirements, such as Japans shaken system. Annual mileage tends to decline as vehicles age.
For example, 2001 vehicles averaged approximately 15,000 miles their first year, 10,000 miles
their 10th year and 5,000 miles their 15th year, so vehicles older than ten years represent about
50% of the vehicle fleet but only about 20% of vehicle mileage (ORNL 2012, Table 3.8).
As previously described, autonomous driving capability will probably increase vehicle purchase
prices by thousands of dollars, and may require hundreds of dollars in annual subscription fees
for special navigation and mapping services. Although self-driving vehicles may provide large
benefits to some users (high-income non-drivers, long-distance automobile commuters, and
commercial drivers), it is unclear what portion of motorists will consider the benefits worth the
additional costs. A recent consumer survey found general support for the concept, but also
significant concerns about privacy and safety, and relatively low willingness to pay extra for
self-driving capability features (Schoettle and Sivak 2014).
12
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Figure 1 illustrates the deployment rates from Table 6. If accurate, in the 2040s autonomous
vehicles will represent approximately 50% of vehicle sales, 30% of vehicles, and 40% of all
vehicle travel. Only in the 2050s would most vehicles be capable of automated driving.
Figure 1 Autonomous Vehicle Sales, Fleet and Travel Projections (Based on Table 6)
100%
Sales - Optimistic
Sales - Pessimistic
80% Travel - Optimistic
Travel - Pessimistic
Fleet - Optimistic
60%
Fleet - Pessimistic
40%
20%
0%
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
If autonomous vehicle implementation follows the patterns of other vehicle technologies it will take one
to three decades to dominate vehicle sales, plus one or two more decades to dominate vehicle travel,
and even at market saturation it is possible that a significant portion of vehicles and vehicle travel will
continue to be self-driven, indicated by the dashed lines.
Autonomous vehicle implementation could be even slower and less complete than these
predictions. Technical challenges may be more difficult to solve than expected, so fully self-
driving vehicles may not be commercially available until the 2030s or 2040s. They may have
higher than expected production costs and retail prices, their benefits may be smaller and
problems greater than predicted, and technical constraints, privacy concerns or personal
preference may reduce consumer acceptance, resulting in a significant portion of vehicle travel
remaining human-driven even after market saturation, indicated in the graph by dashed lines.
Significantly faster implementation would require much faster development, deployment and
fleet turnover than previous vehicle technologies. For example, for the majority of vehicle
travel to be autonomous by 2035, most new vehicles purchased after 2025 would need to be
autonomous, and new vehicle purchase rates would need to triple, so the fleet turnover
process that normally takes three decades can occur in one. This would require most low- and
middle-income motorists, who normally purchase used vehicles or cheaper new models to
spend significantly more in order to purchase a new automobile with self-driving capability, and
many otherwise functional vehicles be scrapped just because they lack self-driving capability.
13
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Planning Implications
Autonomous vehicle implementation is just one of several factors likely to affect future
transport demands and costs, as illustrated in Figure 2. Demographic trends, changing
consumer preferences, price changes, improving transport options, improved user information,
and other planning innovations will also influence how and how much people drive. These may
have greater planning impacts than autonomous vehicles, at least until the 2040s.
Autonomous vehicles are one of many factors that will affect transport demands and costs in the next
few decades, and not necessarily the most important.
Table 8 (next page) summarizes the functional requirements and planning implications of
various autonomous vehicle impacts, and their expected time period based on Table 5
projections. This suggests that during the 2020s and 30s transport planners and engineers will
primarily be concerned with defining autonomous vehicle performance, testing and reporting
requirements for operation on public roadways. If several years of testing demonstrate
autonomous vehicle benefits, transport professionals may support policies that encourage or
require self-driving capability in new vehicles.
One potential impact during the 2030s or 40s may result from autonomous vehicles ability to
provide convenient and inexpensive taxi and carsharing services, reducing the need for
conventional public transit services and allowing more households to rely on such services and
reduce their vehicle ownership, which could reduce parking requirements. However, modeling
by the International Transport Forum indicates that self-driving taxis and public transit services
are complements rather than substitutes, since transit is more efficient at serving many peak-
period urban trips and so significantly reduces the self-driving taxi fleet size and costs.
Some benefits (higher traffic speeds, reduced congestion and automated intersections) require
dedicated autonomous vehicle lanes. This will raise debates about fairness and cost efficiency,
and human drivers may be tempted to use such lanes, for example, following a platoon of self-
driving vehicles, introducing new risks, regulations and enforcement requirements, probably
starting in the 2030s.
14
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
When autonomous vehicles become a major share of total vehicle travel they may significantly
reduce traffic risk, traffic congestion, parking problems, and provide some energy savings and
emission reductions. Transportation professionals will be involved in technical analyses to
determine their actual benefits, and policy debates concerning whether public policies should
encourage or require autonomous vehicles.
These impacts may vary geographically, with more rapid implementation in areas that are more
affluent (residents can more quickly afford autonomous vehicles), more congested (potential
benefits are greater) and have more public support.
15
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
This timeline summarizes how autonomous vehicles are likely to impact transport planning.
Automated banking can reduce the number of branch offices and employees, but customers
often need to interact with human tellers due to personal preferences, and because it is often
faster and less frustrating, and therefore more productive, than automated, Internet or
telephone options. Automation has had evolutionary rather than revolutionary impacts on bank
activities. Other trends new banking services, changing regulations and new management
practices have equal or greater impacts on bank infrastructure planning.
Autonomous vehicle implementation will probably follow similar patterns: deployment will take
several decades, is unlikely to totally displace current technology, will have costs as well as
benefits, and will only marginally affect infrastructure planning for the foreseeable future. It is
one of several current trends likely to affect road, parking and transit demands, and these
changes will probably occur gradually over several decades.
16
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Conclusions
Recent announcements that autonomous vehicles have safely driven hundreds of thousands of
miles and major manufactures aspire to soon sell such vehicles, and optimistic predictions of
their benefits, have raised hopes that this technology will soon be widely available and solve
many transportation problems. However, there are good reasons to be cautious when
predicting their future role.
There is considerable uncertainty concerning autonomous vehicle benefits, costs and travel
impacts. Advocates claim that they will provide large benefits that offset costs, but they will
require additional equipment, services and maintenance costs that will probably total hundreds
or thousands of dollars per vehicle-year, and many of their benefits are unproven.
Current automated vehicles can only self-drive under limited conditions: significant technical
and economic obstacles must be overcome before most households can rely on them for daily
travel. Operating a vehicle on public roads is more complex than flying an airplane due to the
frequency and proximity of interactions with often-unpredictable objects including other
vehicles, pedestrians, animals, buildings, trash and potholes. If they follow previous vehicle
technology deployment patterns, autonomous vehicles will initially be costly and imperfect.
During the 2020s and perhaps the 2030s, autonomous vehicles are likely to be expensive
novelties with limited abilities, such as restrictions on the road conditions in which they may
operate. It will probably be the 2040s or 2050s before middle-income families can afford to
own self-driving vehicles that safely operate in all conditions, and longer before used
autonomous vehicles become affordable to lower-income households. A significant portion of
motorists may resist such vehicles, just as some motorists prefer manual transmissions,
resulting in mixed traffic that creates new roadway management problems.
Vehicle innovations tend to be implemented more slowly than other technological changes due
to their high costs, slow fleet turnover and strict safety requirements. Automobiles typically
cost fifty times and last ten times as long as mobile phones and personal computers, so
consumers seldom purchase new vehicles just to obtain a new technology. Autonomous
vehicles will probably have relatively costly equipment and service standards, similar to
airplanes, which may discourage some users. Large increases in new vehicle purchase and
scrappage rates would be required for most vehicles to be autonomous before 2050.
Self-driving taxi costs are likely to range between carsharing ($0.60-1.00 per mile) and human-
driven taxis ($2.00-3.00 per mile), depending on factors such as their cleaning costs. This will
make them a cost effective alternative to owning lower (5,000 annual miles) vehicles. However,
many motorists are likely to prefer owning personal vehicles for prestige and convenience sake.
As a result, shared autonomous vehicles are likely to reduce vehicle ownership mostly in
compact, multi-modal urban areas, and will have little effect in exurban and rural areas.
Advocates may exaggerate net benefits by ignoring new costs and risks, offsetting behavior (the
tendency of road users to take additional risks when they feel safer), rebound effects (increased
vehicle travel caused by faster travel or reduced operating costs, which may increase external
17
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
costs), and harms to people who do not to use the technology, such as reduced public transit
service. Benefits are sometimes double-counted, for example, by summing increased safety,
traffic speeds and facility savings, although there are trade-offs between them.
Transportation professionals (planners, engineers and policy analysts) have important roles to
play in autonomous vehicle development and deployment. We can help support their
development and testing, and establish performance standards they must meet to legally
operate on public roads. If such vehicles perform successfully and become common they may
affect planning decisions such as the supply, design and operation of roadways, parking and
public transit. To be prudent, such infrastructure changes should only occur after autonomous
vehicle benefits, affordability and public acceptance are fully demonstrated. This may vary:
autonomous vehicles may affect some roadways and communities more than others.
A critical question is whether autonomous vehicles increase or reduce total vehicle travel and
associated external costs. It could go either way. By increasing travel convenience and comfort,
and allowing vehicle travel by non-drivers, they could increase total vehicle mileage, but they
may also facilitate carsharing, which allows households to reduce vehicle ownership and
therefore total driving. This review suggests that they will probably increase total vehicle travel
unless implemented with offsetting policies such as efficient road and parking pricing.
Another critical issue is the degree potential benefits can be achieved when only a portion of
vehicle travel is autonomous. Some benefits, such as improved mobility for affluent non-
drivers, may occur when autonomous vehicles are uncommon and costly, but many potential
benefits require that most or all vehicles on a road operate autonomously. For example, it
seems unlikely that traffic densities can significantly increase, traffic lanes be narrowed, parking
supply be significantly reduced, or traffic signals be eliminated until most vehicle on affected
roads self-drive.
A key public policy issue is the degree that this technology may harm people who do not use
such vehicles, for example, if increased traffic volumes and speeds degrade walking and cycling
conditions, conventional public transit service declines, or human-driven vehicles are restricted.
Some strategies, such as platooning, may require special autonomous vehicle lanes to achieve
benefits. These issues will probably generate considerable debate over their merit and fairness.
Autonomous vehicle implementation is just one of many trends likely to affect future transport
demands and costs, and therefore planning decisions, and not necessarily the most important.
Its ultimate impacts depend on how it interacts with other trends, such as shifts from personal
to shared vehicles. It is probably not a game changer during most of our professional lives,
and is certainly not a paradigm shift since it does not fundamentally change how we define
transport problems; rather, it reinforces existing automobile-oriented transport planning.
18
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
References
James M. Anderson, et al. (2014), Autonomous Vehicle Technology a Guide for Policymakers, RAND
Corporation (www.rand.org); at www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR443-
1/RAND_RR443-1.pdf.
APA (2016), Planning for the Autonomous Vehicle Revolution, American Planning Association Blog
(www.planning.org); at www.planning.org/blog/blogpost/9105024.
Allison Arieff (2013), Driving Sideways, New York Times, 23 July 2013; at
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/driving-sideways.
Tom Bamonte (2013), Autonomous Vehicles: Drivers for Change, Roads and Bridges,
(www.roadsbridges.com), Summer, pp. 5-10; at
www.roadsbridges.com/sites/default/files/05_autonomous%20vehicles.pdf.
Burkhard Bilger (2013), Auto Correct: Has the Self-Driving Car at Last Arrived, New Yorker, 25 November
2013; at www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/11/25/131125fa_fact_bilger.
Jake Blumgart (2013), Whither the Driverless Car? Next City, 23 January 2013 (http://nextcity.org); at
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/whither-the-driverless-car.
Patrick Bsch, Felix Becker, Hemrol Becker and Kay W. Axhausen (2017), Cost-based Analysis of
Autonomous Mobility Services, Working Paper 1225, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems
(www.ivt.ethz.ch), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology; at
www.ivt.ethz.ch/institut/vpl/publikationen/papers/1225.html.
Tristan Cathers (2014), When Will You Be Able To Buy A Driverless Car?, Mojo Motors
(www.mojomotors.com); at www.mojomotors.com/blog/when-will-you-be-able-to-buy-a-driverless-car.
Sarah E. DeWitt (2015), Driverless Cars Pose No Immediate Threat to Personal Auto Insurers, North America
Equity Research, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (www.jpmorgan.com).
Stephen Dirksen (1997), Air Bags: History of American Technology, Bryant University Community Web
(http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/sprg_97/dirksen/airbags.html).
William Ecenbarger (2009), Buckle Up Your Seatbelt and Behave, Smithsonian Magazine
(www.smithsonianmag.com); at www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Buckle-Up-
And-Behave.html.
Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara M. Kockelman (2013), Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles:
Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations, Eno Foundation (www.enotrans.org); at
www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/downloadables/AV-paper.pdf.
19
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Fehr & Peers (2014), Effects of Next-Generation Vehicles on Travel Demand & Highway Capacity, Fehr and
Peers (www.fehrandpeers.com); at www.fehrandpeers.com/fpthink/nextgenerationvehicles.
Thomas Fray (2013), Driverless Cars: A Driving Force Coming to a Future Near You, Futurist Speak
(www.futuristspeaker.com); at www.futuristspeaker.com/2012/01/driverless-cars-a-driving-force-coming-
to-a-future-near-you.
Brian Fung (2015), Driverless Cars Are Getting Into Accidents, But The Police Reports Are Not Being Made
Public, Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com); at http://wapo.st/1HbLHx9.
Lee Gomes (2014), Hidden Obstacles For Googles Self-Driving Cars: Impressive Progress Hides Major
Limitations Of Googles Quest For Automated Driving, MIT Technological Review,
(www.technologyreview.com), 28 August 2014; at www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-
obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars.
Bern Grush (2016), Driverless Cars Ahead: Ontario Must Prepare for Vehicle Automation, Residential and
Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO); at http://rccao.com/research/files/RCCAO_Vehicle-
Automation_OCT2016_WEB.pdf.
Erick Guerra (2015), Planning for Cars That Drive Themselves: Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
Regional Transportation Plans, and Autonomous Vehicles, Journal of Planning Education and Research, pp.
115 (DOI: 10.1177/0739456X15613591); at http://bit.ly/1RqcBaZ.
James R. Healey (2012), Stick Shifts Popular Again, Despite Lower Gas Mileage, USA Today, 30 April
(www.usatoday.com); at http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/04/stick-shift-
manual-transmission-ford-focus-surprise-more-interest-------/1#.Uhp5tdLCbLQ.
Ryan Holeywell (2013), 6 Questions States Need to Ask About Self-Driving Cars, Governing Magazine, 14
August 2013; at www.governing.com/blogs/fedwatch/gov-six-questions-that-need-to-be-answered-about-
self-driving-cars.html.
Mark Harris (2014), FBI Warns Driverless Cars Could Be Used As 'Lethal Weapons': Internal Report Sees
Benefits For Road Safety, But Warns That Autonomy Will Create Greater Potential For Criminal
'Multitasking', The Guardian (www.theguardian.com), 16 July 2014; at
www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/16/google-fbi-driverless-cars-leathal-weapons-autonomous.
ITIF (2013), The Road Ahead: The Emerging Policy Debates for IT in Vehicles, Information Technology &
Innovation Foundation (www.itif.org); at www2.itif.org/2013-road-ahead.pdf.
Eric Jaffe (2013), Let's All Stop Obsessing About the 'Next Great Thing' in Urban Transportation, Atlantic
Cities (www.theatlanticcities.com); at www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/08/lets-all-stop-
obsessing-about-next-great-thing-urban-transportation/6469.
20
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Andrew Keen (2013), The Future of Travel: How Driverless Cars Could Change Everything, CNN Business
Traveler, 15 May; at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/13/business/business-traveller-
transportationfuturecast.
KPMG (2012), Self-Driving Cars: The Next Revolution, KPMG and the Center for Automotive Research; at
www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/self-driving-cars-next-
revolution.pdf.
Kara Kockelman, et al. (2016), Implications of Connected and Automated Vehicles on the Safety and
Operations of Roadway Networks, University of Texas Center for Transportation Research
(http://ctr.utexas.edu), for the Texas Department of Transportation; at http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-
publications/0-6849-1.pdf.
David Levinson (2015), Climbing Mount Next: The Effects of Autonomous Vehicles on Society, Minnesota
Journal of Law Science and Technology, Vo. 16, No. 2, pp. 787-809; at
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/MountNext.pdf.
Scott Le Vine, Alireza Zolfaghari and John Polak (2015), Autonomous Cars: The Tension Between
Occupant-Experience And Intersection Capacity, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
(www.journals.elsevier.com/transportation-research-part-c-emerging-technologies).
Jamie Lendino (2012), The History of Car GPS Navigation, PC Magazine (www.pcmag.com); 16 April; at
www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402755,00.asp.
Patrick Lin (2013), The Ethics of Saving Lives With Autonomous Cars Are Far Murkier Than You Think,
Wired (www.wired.com); at www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/the-surprising-ethics-of-robot-cars.
Todd Litman (2013), The New Transportation Planning Paradigm, ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vo. 83, No. 6,
pp. 20-28, 2013; at www.vtpi.org/paradigm.pdf.
Jerome M. Lutin, Alain L. Kornhauser and Eva Lerner-Lam (2013), The Revolutionary Development of Self-
Driving Vehicles and Implications for the Transportation Engineering Profession, ITE Journal, July, pp. 21-
26; at http://digitaleditions.sheridan.com/display_article.php?id=1446463&id_issue=165937.
Adam Millard-Ball (2016), Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities, Journal of Planning Education
and Research, pp. 1-7 (DOI: 10.1177/0739456X16675674); at http://bit.ly/2ga4vV0.
Jim Motavalli (2012), Self-Driving Cars Will Take Over By 2040, Forbes Magazine, 25 Sept. 2012; at
www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2012/09/25/self-driving-cars-will-take-over-by-2040
Joann Muller (2013), No Hands, No Feet: My Unnerving Ride In Google's Driverless Car, Forbes Magazine
(www.forbes.com), 21 March 2013; at www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/03/21/no-hands-no-feet-
my-unnerving-ride-in-googles-driverless-car.
21
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Siva R. K. Narla (2013), The Evolution of Connected Vehicle Technology: From Smart Drivers to Smart Cars
to Self-Driving Cars, ITE Journal, July, pp. 21-26; at
www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2013/JB13GA22.pdf.
NHTSA (2013), Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.gov).
Alan Ohnsman (2014), Automated Cars May Boost Fuel Use, Toyota Scientist Says, Bloomberg Press, 16
July 2014 (www.bloomberg.com); at www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-16/automated-cars-may-boost-
fuel-use-toyota-scientist-says.html.
ORNL (2012), Transportation Energy Book, Oak Ridge National Lab. (www-cta.ornl.gov/data), USDOE.
Steven E. Polzin (2017), Setting Expectations for Mobility as a Service, Planetizen (www.planetizen.com); at
www.planetizen.com/node/90839.
John Preston and Ben Waterson (2015), Transports Innovation Problem: Why Havent Flying Cars
Taken Off?, The Conversation (https://theconversation.com); at https://theconversation.com/transports-
innovation-problem-why-havent-flying-cars-taken-off-46094.
Shelley Row (2013), The Future of Transportation: Connected Vehicles to Driverless VehiclesWhat Does It
Mean To Me? ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 83, No. 10, pp. 24-25.
Paul Saffo and Andrew Bergbaum (2013), Are Completely Self-Driving Cars Feasible in the Foreseeable
Future?, The Economist, 3 May 2013; at www.economist.com/debate/days/view/974.
Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak (2014), A Survey Of Public Opinion About Autonomous And Self-
Driving Vehicles In The U.S., The U.K., And Australia, Report UMTRI-2014-21, Transportation Research
Institute, University of Michigan (www.umich.edu/~umtriswt).
Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak (2015), Should We Require Licensing Tests And Graduated Licensing
For Self-Driving Vehicles?, Report UMTRI-2015-33, Transportation Research Institute, University of
Michigan (www.umich.edu/~umtriswt).
Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak (2016), Motorists' Preferences for Different Levels of Vehicle
Automation, Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan (www.umich.edu/~umtriswt).
Ben Schonberger and Steve Gutmann (2013), A Self-Driving Future: At the Intersection of Driverless Cars
and Car Sharing, Sightline Institute (www.sightline.org); at http://daily.sightline.org/2013/06/04/a-self-
driving-future.
Tom Simonite (2016), Prepare to be Underwhelmed by 2021s Autonomous Cars: Ford, Uber, and BMW
Promise Fully Self-Driving Cars in Five YearsBut They Will Probably Only Work in Very Limited Areas, MIT
Technology Review (www.technologyreview.com); at www.technologyreview.com/s/602210/prepare-to-
be-underwhelmed-by-2021s-autonomous-cars.
22
Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle (2015a), Road Safety With Self-Driving Vehicles: General Limitations
And Road Sharing With Conventional Vehicles, Sustainable Worldwide Transportation Program
(www.umich.edu/~umtriswt), University of Michigan.
Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle (2015b), Potential Impact of Self-Driving Vehicles on Household
Vehicle Demand and Usage, Sustainable Worldwide Transportation Program (www.umich.edu/~umtriswt),
University of Michigan.
Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle (2015c), Influence of Current Nondrivers on the Amount of Travel and
Trip Patterns with Self-Driving Vehicles, Sustainable Worldwide Transportation Program
(www.umich.edu/~umtriswt), University of Michigan; at www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2015-
39_Abstract_English.pdf.
Stefan Trommer, et al. (2016), Autonomous Driving The Impact of Vehicle Automation on Mobility
Behaviour, Institute of Transport Research (www.ifmo.de); at
www.ifmo.de/tl_files/publications_content/2016/ifmo_2016_Autonomous_Driving_2035_en.pdf.
Bryant Walker Smith (2012), Managing Autonomous Transportation Demand, Santa Clara Law Review, Vol.
52, No 4, Article 8; at http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol52/iss4/8.
www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf
23